# James Randi and Dry Spots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926 "2004-10-13T01:46:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/321 "2004-11-18T14:49:48Z")
Oops. I wouldn’t say that to a Scotsman if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/322 "2004-11-18T15:16:38Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, to me it looks like a clear disinterest in discussing that particular matter in private, but I can’t read his mind or yours. > > See, I mentioned that sort of thing earlier, only it was “Randi fans”, not “Randi’s supporters”. So, let’s get this straight. You consider “Randi fan” to be a term of abuse? > [@](#): > > Does it honestly not occur to you that someone who feels the whole “dry spot” thing is overblown might do so honestly and not because of any particular feelings toward Randi? You must realize by now that such rhetoric isn’t helping your claim. Look, I once posted a legal question about Randi on another forum. Recently, one of the fanatics on Randi’s own forum discovered my question, and posted a stream of abuse against me for simply asking the question. Once one idiot started, all the rest joined in. So, I was attempting to discuss one point with them, but in return I got a stream of vile abuse. Randi’s supporters wouldn’t stick to the point in hand, but spewed out a stream of abuse against me for posting my question. The words “stalker” and “obsessed” kept flying. Rather than stick to the point I was discussing, they spewed out abuse because I had asked the question. Following Princhesters suggestion to put my question in GQ would only fuel their hate. I attempted to discuss the matter privately with Princhester, hoping that he would be willing to talk about his own area of expertise. He wasn’t, so I didn’t persue it. I’ll seek advice about the matter elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/323 "2004-11-18T15:35:04Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > I’ve been reading this (interminable) thread with much interest and I think I’ve discovered the problem: > > **Peter** , where did you learn to read? At school did you ever do any reading comprehension tests? As has been pointed out before there is absolutely no point in taking a sentence out of context. Read the whole passage again. Were you seriously offended by this? Why? What part of it is anything other than considered and polite? Since we’re talking about reading comprehension skillls, maybe you should check your own. First of all, I didn’t say I was offended by those words. There were _other_ parts of his message that I found _mildly_ ofensive, but Princhester didn’t quote those. Secondly, the reason I didn’t reply was because Princhester said he would not debate it with me in private messages. I would have liked to respond to his message. But he made it clear he didn’t want any response. Your reading comprehension skills seem to have confused these two points. You seem to imagine that I said _I didn’t reply because I was offended._ That’s not what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/324 "2004-11-18T15:37:38Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Following Princhesters suggestion to put my question in GQ would only fuel their hate. **I attempted to discuss the matter privately with Princhester, hoping that he would be willing to talk about his own area of expertise**. **He wasn’t, so I didn’t persue it.** > I’ll seek advice about the matter elsewhere. (Bolding mine.) **Peter Morris** , this is absolutely contradicted by the facts, facts to which you have stipulated. **Princhester** discussed it with you, explained precisely where his expertise was deficient, and suggested other avenues for you to pursue. It’s all well and good to try the Big Lie approach to your personal history, but you would be well served to avoid so doing in a thread where your own words betray you. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/325 "2004-11-18T15:55:47Z")
Where’s the lie? ---
**Author:** ![Ithaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Ithaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ithaka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/326 "2004-11-18T15:58:42Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Since we’re talking about reading comprehension skillls, maybe you should check your own. Fair enough: > [@Peter Morris](#): > > Princhester, there was more I’d have liked to ask you, but you demanded that I not contact you further. You had made it clear that you would not respond. So I didn’t. (from post 302) This is how you interpret the message in question. Note the use of “demanded”. This is why I see you as having taken offense. Everyone else who has commented interprets the message thus: > [@trandallt](#): > > Princhester discussed it with you, explained precisely where his expertise was deficient, and suggested other avenues for you to pursue. You don’t seem to have been correct about anything in this thread and all the evidence, both yours and other peoples, speaks against you. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/327 "2004-11-18T16:05:32Z")
Seriously, what have I said that’s untrue? Princhester said **"I’m not going to debate you in Private Messaging for two reasons."** He sent me his message, and refused any further discussion. What part of this don’t you understand.l ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/328 "2004-11-18T16:05:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **PM** :I would have liked to respond to his message. > [@](#): > > \*\*PM:\*\*As for taking the questuion to GQ - no thanks. A&-A. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/329 "2004-11-18T16:12:41Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > Fair enough: > (from post 302) > > This is how you interpret the message in question. Note the use of “demanded”. This is why I see you as having taken offense. definition of [demanded](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=demanded) 1. To ask for urgently or peremptorily: demand an investigation into the murder; demanding that he leave immediately; demanded to speak to the manager. 2. To claim as just or due: demand repayment of a loan. 3. To ask to be informed of: I demand a reason for this interruption. 4. To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary; call for: a gem that demands a fine setting. 5. Law. 1. To summon to court. 2. To claim formally; lay legal claim to. What part of that says anything about offense? > [@](#): > > You don’t seem to have been correct about anything in this thread and all the evidence, both yours and other peoples, speaks against you. What evidence would that be? All I’ve seen is Princhesters abuse. I’ve given evidence, all Princhester has is hate. ---
**Author:** ![Ithaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Ithaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ithaka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/330 "2004-11-18T16:21:36Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > . . . and refused any further discussion. No, he didn’t. > [@Princhester](#): > > What I will say is, if you want to debate, by all means open a thread somewhere suitable and ask your question again and quote my answer and we can go from there. I know you have said that you did not want to do this. That is your decision and therefore it is you who is refusing further discussion. Is this not obvious? And, on preview: > [@Peter Morris](#): > > definition of demanded > > 1. To ask for urgently or peremptorily: demand an investigation into the murder; demanding that he leave immediately; demanded to speak to the manager. Do you not speak English? Definition of [peremptorily](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peremptorily) **Peter** , can I make a suggestion? Don’t cite, ever - you’re really bad at it. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/331 "2004-11-18T16:34:51Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > No, he didn’t. **"I’m not going to debate you in Private Messaging for two reasons. "** What part of this don’t you understand? I wanted to ask him some questions in private messages. He refused to accept any private messages from me. Then, a few days later, he spews out abuse at me for not responding to his private message. He didn’t want me to send him a private message, and that’s what he got. But he blames me for what he demanded. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/332 "2004-11-18T16:38:08Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > I know you have said that you did not want to do this. That is your decision and therefore it is you who is refusing further discussion. > > Is this not obvious? No, because you are twisting words to make your point. Princhester refused to discuss in private messages. You are trying to extend his refusal to this forum. That is your dishonesty. That is obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Ithaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Ithaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ithaka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/333 "2004-11-18T16:50:22Z")
No, it is you who have made out that his reply was a refusal to continue all communication. It is true that he refused to continue this one particular debate in PM. How does this prevent you from thanking him for the help he has already provided? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/334 "2004-11-18T16:57:49Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > I wanted to ask him some questions in private messages. > > He refused to accept any private messages from me. > > Then, a few days later, he spews out abuse at me for not responding to his private message. He didn’t want me to send him a private message, and that’s what he got. But he blames me for what he demanded. You fucking loon. He didn’t refuse to accept **any** private messages from you. He only refused to debate the topic. As an example of how the exchange could have (and should have if you weren’t a frickin idiot) gone: **PM** : Hey, I have legal question about the Randi challenge. **Prin** : Firstly, I really think you’d be better off asking this in GQ on the 'dope. I’d be quite prepared to keep it on the straight and narrow legal question and not go off to GD (if you would!). The problem with asking me is that while there is much commonality of legal principle in the Western world,“consideration” is one of those topics where the finer details may just be different in Florida, and wagering is often statutorily regulated. But for what it’s worth… Secondly, I’m not going to debate you in Private Messaging for two reasons. If there’s going to be a debate on the legal niceties I’d rather do it in an open forum than get into a personal spat. And also, there’s not much point in getting into too much of a debate when I’m not sure of the details anyway (see point one). So I’ll give you an answer and that’s it. What I will say is, if you want to debate, by all means open a thread somewhere suitable and ask your question again and quote my answer and we can go from there. **PM** : Well, I’d really prefer not to open a GQ thread on it because any time I talk about Randi I get accused of being obsessed and “stalking” him, but thanks for the information you did give. I really appreciate it. **Prin** : Hey no sweat. Sorry to hear that you’re not comfortable opening a GQ thread. It’s a subject I wouldn’t mind seeing discussed. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/335 "2004-11-18T16:58:15Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > No, it is you who have made out that his reply was a refusal to continue all communication. That is a lie, plain and simple. I always was talking about Princhester’s refuasal to correspond in private messages. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/336 "2004-11-18T17:04:11Z")
[QUOTE=Zakalwe] You fucking loon. He didn’t refuse to accept **any** private messages from you. He only refused to debate the topic. Oh god, another pedant who needs every fricken word spelt out to him in exact detail. Alright, for the benefit of the ultra pedantic: Princhester refused to discuss the question I had asked him in private messages. Then he screamed abuse because I didn’t send him a private message to discuss the point further. ---
**Author:** ![Ithaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Ithaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ithaka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/337 "2004-11-18T17:10:49Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > That is a lie, plain and simple. > > I always was talking about Princhester’s refuasal to correspond in private messages. Are you reading these posts? That’s the whole point - he didn’t refuse to correspond, just not to debate that one point. So please don’t call me a liar. Which, on preview, I see you’ve just admitted: > [@](#): > > Alright, for the benefit of the ultra pedantic: Princhester refused to discuss the question I had asked him in private messages. Then he screamed abuse because I didn’t send him a private message to discuss the point further. And he didn’t “scream abuse” because you didn’t “discuss the point further” but because you neglected to offer him a common courtesy for information provided. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/338 "2004-11-18T17:17:17Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > Are you reading these posts? That’s the whole point - he didn’t refuse to correspond, just not to debate that one point. So please don’t call me a liar. You are a liar. You twist words around, desperate to find anything I’ve said that’s wrong. You quote me out of context, trying to attach meanings that simply are not there. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/339 "2004-11-18T17:51:07Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Oh god, another pedant who needs every fricken word spelt out to him in exact detail. > > Alright, for the benefit of the ultra pedantic: Princhester refused to discuss the question I had asked him in private messages. Then he screamed abuse because I didn’t send him a private message to discuss the point further. I suppose if we expand pedant to mean “one who insists on interpreting English words by their commonly accepted meaning”, then guilty as charged. Per his own words, which have accepted as accurate, \*\*Princhester \*\* refused to “debate you” on the subject. Period. There is no reasonable way to interpret this as an insistence on no further communication on any subject whatsoever. And his “screaming abuse” regarding the lack of a response was this: > [@Princhester](#): > > You never posted any response. Not even a casual “Ta for that Princhester”. Not a word. That this hardly qualifies as screaming abuse is beside the point for now. The point is that he didn’t “abuse” you because you refused to discuss it further, but because you didn’t acknowledge his help. Your refusal to understand basic English is becoming the very model of Jerkery. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/340 "2004-11-18T18:01:09Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > I > Per his own words, which have accepted as accurate, \*\*Princhester \*\* refused to “debate you” on the subject. Period. There is no reasonable way to interpret this as an insistence on no further communication on any subject whatsoever. And I never said he did. You _pretend_ I said that, but you are lying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=18)